L  v^A  <i.><-A.<^ 


Lincoln  and  the  Present 
International  Situation 


"Can  aliens  make  treaties  easier 
than  friends  can  make  laws?" 
-from  Lincoln's  First  Inaugural  Address, 


LINCOLN  ROOM 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


MEMORIAL 

the  Class  of  1901 

founded  by 

HARLAN  HOYT  HORNER 

and 

HENRIETTA  CALHOUN  HORNER 


LINCOLN  AND  THE  PRESENT 
INTERNATIONAL  SITUATION 


A  contribution  to  the  thought 
on  world  peace. 


h 


BENJAMIN  A.  JAVITS 


NEW    YORK 
1924 


Copyright,  1924 


In  reading  Lincoln's  First  Inaugural  Address,  one  is» 
struck  by  his  prophetic  vision,  and  by  the  timeliness  of  the 
principles  which  he  has  laid  down.  These  principles  seem 
to  suggest  a  solution  for  civilzation's  great  problem — the 
maintenance  of  international  peace.  About  the  time  that 
Lincoln  delivered  this  address  South  Carolina  put  forward 
the  issue  of  state  sovereignty.  Bound  up  with  that  issue 
was  the  issue  of  war  between  the  states.  Today,  the  issue 
is  again  state  sovereignty,  but  it  is  presented  not  by  one 
state,  but  by  the  United  States.  Bound  up  with  this  action 
is  the  issue  of  war  between  the  nations. 

Had  the  principles  enunciated  by  Lincoln  in  this  ad- 
dress been  peacefully  followed,  there  would  have  been  no 
Civil  War.  Should  these  same  principles  be  adopted  by 
the  world  states  today,  war  between  nations  would  be  a 
closed  chapter  forever.  Lincoln  pointed  out  the  way  that 
\  we  must  and  should  go.  The  present  situation  is  in  all 
:;|      essential  points  analogous  to  that  which  confronted  him. 

In  Part  One,  are  quoted  those  parts  of  Lincoln's  ad- 
dress which  are  germane  to  the  present  international  situ- 
ation. My  comment  follows  each  quotation  showing  its 
present  day  application. 

In  Part  Two,  are  the  conclusions  which  I  have  drawn 

from  Lincoln's  address,  showing  how  the  issue  of  state 

j^      sovereignty  hitherto  has  been  solved;  how  similarly  it  may 

^     be  solved  now;  and  how  there  must  follow  as  a  natural 

result — international  peace. 

Benjamin  A.  Javits. 

New  York  City,  N.  Y. 
October,  1923. 


Fart  One 

Lincoln^s  First  Inaugural  Address 
Its  Frinciples  of  Feace 


PART  ONE 


No  greater  document  has  ever  been  penned  in  the 
interests  of  peace,  than  Abraham  Lincoln's  First  Inaugural 
Address  which  was  delivered  at  Washington  on  the  fourth 
day  of  March,  1861: 

"Fellow-citizens  of  the  United  States: 
In  compliance  with  a  custom  as  old  as  the 
government  itself,  I  appear  before  you  to  ad- 
dress you  briefly,  and  to  take  in  your  presence 
the  oath  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  to  be  taken  by  the  President  "be- 
fore he  enters  on  the  execution  of  his  office." 

.  .  .  Those  who  nominated  and  elected  me 
did  so  with  full  knowledge  that  I  had  made  this 
and  many  similar  declarations,  and  had  never 
recanted  them.  And,  more  than  this,  they  placed 
in  the  platform  for  my  acceptance,  and  as  a  law 
to  themselves  and  to  me,  the  clear  and  emphatic 
resolution  which  I  now  read: 

Resolved,  that  the  maintenance  inviolate 
of  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  especially  the 
right  of  each  State  to  order  and  control  its  own 
domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judg- 
ment exclusively,  is  essential  to  that  balance  of 
power  on  which  the  perfection  and  endurance  of 
our  political  fabric  depend,  and  we  denounce  the 
lawless  invasion  by  armed  force  of  the  soil  of 
any  State  or  Territory,  no  matter  under  what 
pretext,  as  among  the  gravest  of  crimes." 

Politically   speaking,   the   League   of  Nations   is   at 
present  in  a  position  similar  to  that  of  the  United  States 


[Six] 


at  the  time  Lincoln  delivered  this  address.  At  that  time, 
some  of  our  states  below  the  Mason  and  Dixon  Line  be- 
lieved in  state  sovereignty;  today,  by  our  rejection  of  the 
League,  we,  too,  believe  in  that  doctrine. 

In  1860,  the  states  were  less  dependent  upon  each 
other  economically,  than  the  different  nations  are  today, 
for  example,  rubber  unites  us  with  the  Asiatic  continent; 
diamonds  connect  us  with  the  African  continent;  platinum 
joins  us  to  the  European  continent;  while  our  exports  link 
us  with  all  the  continents.  We  are  a  nation  of  the  world 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  oil  regions,  the  mining 
sections,  and  the  wheat  fields  are  inseparable  parts  of  our 
own  country.  How  vitally  we  are  affected  by  foreign 
problems  was  recently  shown  when  the  United  States 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  with  an  insistence  that  was  almost 
a  demand,  requested  of  President  Coolidge,  that  we  step 
in,  whether  officially  or  unofficially,  and  straighten  out 
European  affairs. 

Social  and  political  relations  are  dictated  almost  ex- 
clusively by  the  economic  interdependence  of  peoples, 
hence,  the  reason  so  many  nations  entered  into  a  league 
becomes  obvious.     Lincoln  continues: 

".  .  .  Perpetuity  is  implied,  if  not  ex- 
pressed, in  the  fundamental  law  of  all  national 
governments. 

.  .  .  Again,  if  the  United  States  be  not  a 
government  proper,  but  an  association  of  States 
in  the  nature  of  contract  merely,  can  it,  as  a  con- 
tract, be  peaceably  unmade  by  less  than  all  the 
parties  who  made  it?  One  party  to  a  contract 
may  violate  it — break  it,  so  to  speak;  but  does 
it  not  require  all  to  lawfully  rescind  it? 

Descending  from  these  general  principles, 

[Seven] 


we  find  the  proposition  that  in  legal  contempla- 
tion, the  Union  is  perpetual — confirmed  by  the 
history  of  the  Union  itself.  The  Union  is  much 
older  than  the  Constitution.  It  was  formed,  in 
fact,  by  the  Articles  of  Association  in  1774.  It 
was  matured  and  continued  by  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  in  1776.  It  was  further 
matured,  and  the  faith  of  all  the  then  thirteen 
States  expressly  plighted  and  engaged  that  it 
should  be  perpetual,  by  the  Articles  of  Confed- 
eration in  1778.  And  finally,  in  1787,  one  of 
the  declared  objects  for  ordaining  and  establish- 
ing the  Constitution  was  'to  form  a  more  perfect 
Union.'  " 

Nearly  all  of  the  nations  which  were  opposed  to 
Germany,  have  matured  and  continued  "the  Union",  that 
is,  the  League  of  Nations.  They  have  found,  as  was 
seen  in  the  period  from  1774  to  1787,  that  "the  Union" 
cannot  proceed  to  function,  unless  "the  faith  of  all"  the 
nations  is  "expressly  plighted  and  engaged",  and  unless 
"a  more  perfect  union"  is  formed. 

"But  if  the  destruction  of  the  Union  by  one 
or  by  a  part  only  of  the  States  be  lawfully  pos- 
sible, the  Union  is  less  perfect  than  before  the 
Constitution,  having  lost  the  vital  element  of 
perpetuity. 

It  follows  from  these  views,  that  no  State 
upon  its  own  mere  motion  can  lawfully  get  out 
of  the  Union;  that  resolves  and  ordinances  to 
that  effect  are  legally  void;  and  that  acts  of  vio- 
lence, within  any  State  or  States,  against  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  are  insurrection- 
ary or  revolutionary,  according  to  circum- 
stances." 


[Eight] 


Recently,  words  similar  to  these  were  uttered  by  the 
voice  of  civilization  to  Mussolini,  to  Russia,  and  to  Mex- 
ico. Our  voice  was  clearly  heard  among  the  rest.  No 
longer  are  lingual  or  racial  differences  bars  to  a  unity 
of  international  thought  or  of  international  action.  No 
longer  can  any  nation  forget,  even  momentarily,  that  it 
is  a  state  of  the  world.  The  World  War  and  its  aftermath 
have  proven  all  of  this. 

".  .  .  That  there  are  persons  in  one  section 
or  another  who  seek  to  destroy  the  Union  at  all 
events,  and  are  glad  of  any  pretext  to  do  it,  I 
will  neither  affirm  nor  deny;  but  if  there  be  such 
I  need  address  no  word  to  them.  To  those,  how- 
ever, who  really  love  the  Union,  may  I  not 
speak? 

Before  entering  upon  so  grave  a  matter  as 
the  destruction  of  our  national  fabric,  with  all 
its  benefits,  its  memories,  and  its  hopes,  would 
it  not  be  wise  to  ascertain  precisely  why  we  do 
it?  Will  you  hazard  so  desperate  a  step  while 
there  is  any  possibility  that  any  portion  of  the 
ills  you  fly  from  have  no  real  existence?  Will 
you,  while  the  certain  ills  you  fly  to  are  greater 
than  all  the  real  ones  you  fly  from — will  you  risk 
the  commission  of  so  fearful  a  mistake?" 

By  maintaining  our  political  isolation,  may  we  not 
be  flying  from  an  international  amity  into  an  international 
calamity?  Should  we  fail  to  enter  into  a  union  with  the 
states  of  the  world  we  might  commit  "a  fearful  mistake" 
— we  might  help  to  destroy  them.  Since  most  of  us  hope 
for  the  brotherhood  of  man,  should  we  not  enter  into  such  a 
union,  and  thus  take  a  decisive  step  toward  the  attainment 
of  that  enviable  goal? 


[Nine] 


".  .  .  All  the  vital  rights  of  minorities  and 
of  individuals  are  so  plainly  assured  to  them 
by  affirmations  and  negations,  guarantees  and 
prohibitions,  in  the  Constitution  that  controver- 
sies never  arise  concerning  them.  But  no  organic 
law  can  ever  be  framed  with  a  provision  speci- 
fically applicable  to  every  question  which  may 
occur  in  practical  administration.  No  foresight 
can  anticipate,  nor  any  document  of  reasonable 
length  contain  express  provisions  for  all  possible 
questions. 

.  .  .  From  questions  of  this  class  spring 
all  our  constitutional  controversies,  and  we 
divide  upon  them  into  majorities  and  minorities. 
If  the  minority  will  not  acquiesce,  the  majority 
must,  or  the  government  must  cease.  There  is 
no  other  alternative;  for  continuing  the  govern- 
ment is  acquiescence  on  one  side  or  the  other." 

The  states  of  the  world,  today,  by  the  great  weight 
of  actual  fact,  are  a  single  economic  unit.  History  shows 
us  that  whenever  there  has  been  a  unity  of  economic  inter- 
ests, as,  among  the  Thirteen  .  States,  the  states  in  the 
"Boot"  of  Europe,  and  the  Germanic  States,  political 
union  and  harmony  have  resulted.  At  present,  a  majority 
of  the  states  of  the  world  have  formed  a  political  union, 
but  the  United  States  as  a  powerful  minority  has  refused 
to  join.  Such  a  situation  cannot  continue  indefinitely  or 
peacefully. 

".  .  .  Plainly,  the  central  idea  of  secession 
is  the  essence  of  anarchy.  A  majority  held  in 
restraint  by  constitutional  checks  and  limita- 
tions, and  always  changing  easily  with  deliberate 
changes  of  popular  opinions  and  sentiments,  is 
the  only  true  sovereign  of  a  free  people.    Who- 


ITen} 


ever  rejects  it  does,  of  necessity,  fly  to  anarchy 
or  to  despotism.  Unanimity  is  impossible;  the 
rule  of  a  minority,  as  a  permanent  arrangement, 
is  wholly  inadmissible;  so  that,  rejecting  the 
majority  principle,  anarchy  or  despotism  in  some 
form,  is  all  that  is  left." 

The  foregoing  words,  so  pregnant  with  meaning, 
indicate  that  were  Lincoln  living  today,  he  would  favor 
a  union  of  nations.  Following  his  thought,  we  are  obliged 
to  conclude  that  were  the  political  interests  of  a  majority 
of  the  nations  opposed  to  the  interests  of  a  minority,  the 
minority  must  acquiesce,  especially  since  both  the  major- 
ity and  the  minority  are  united  economically.  The  United 
States  is  a  minority;  it  is  supported  by,  and  it  must  in 
turn  support,  the  rest  of  civilization.  "Secession  is  the 
essence  of  anarchy." 

What  power  is  to  stop  the  other  nations  from  feeling 
toward  the  United  States  as  Lincoln  felt  toward  the  South? 
Lincoln  felt  that  the  Northern  and  the  Southern  States  had 
common  interests;  that  they  had  to  continue,  or  that  they 
had  to  fall  together;  that  there  was  only  one  Union;  and 
that  rather  than  submit  to  a  division  of  that  Union  he 
would  fight  to  save  its  life.  As  Lincoln  thought,  so  the 
nations  of  the  world  will  think.  They  will  fight  to  pre- 
serve their  existence!  And  to  that  end,  may  it  not  come 
to  pass  that  they  will  say  to  us,  "You  are  a  part  of  us! 
You  must  and  shall  assist  and  save  us,  as  well  as  save 
and  nurture  yourself!"  Such  words  mean  war!  This  is 
the  crux  of  the  whole  matter. 

In  1860,  the  South  had  cotton,  the  North  had  machin- 
ery. Economically,  one  part  of  the  country  could  not  live 
without  the  other.  In  1923,  the  cooperation  of  the  United 
States  is  demanded  by  the  rest  of  the  world.  Without 
such  cooperation  the  world  cannot  continue  in  peace,  but 

[Eleven] 


must  plunge  into  "despotism  or  anarchy" — it  is  a  divided 
house.  Lincoln's  memorable  words  ring  with  truth:  "A 
house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand." 

Let  us  test  Lincoln's  statement  by  the  light  of  the 
experience  of  our  day.  Germany  was  a  despotic  and 
imperialistic  minority.  She  refused  to  cooperate  with 
the  rest  of  the  world.  The  majority  of  the  world  states, 
thereupon,  forced  her  to  submit.  Had  Germany  been  the 
victor,  no  one  can  doubt  but  that  there  would  have  been 
"anarchy  or  despotism  in  some  form." 

".  .  .  Physically  speaking,  we  cannot  sep- 
arate. We  cannot  remove  our  respective  sections 
from  each  other,  nor  build  an  impassable  wall 
between  them.  A  husband  and  wife  may  be 
divorced  and  go  out  of  the  presence  and  beyond 
the  reach  of  each  other;  but  the  different  parts 
of  our  country  cannot  do  this.  They  cannot  but 
remain  face  to  face  and  intercourse,  either  amic- 
able or  hostile,  must  continue  between  them.  Is 
it  possible,  then,  to  make  that  intercourse  more 
advantageous  or  more  satisfactory  after  separa- 
tion than  before?  Can  aliens  make  treaties 
easier  than  friends  can  make  laws?  Can  treaties 
be  more  faithfully  enforced  between  aliens  than 
laws  can  among  friends?  Suppose  you  go  to 
war,  you  cannot  fight  always;  and  when,  after 
much  loss  on  both  sides,  and  no  gain  on  either, 
you  cease  fighting,  the  identical  old  questions 
as  to  terms  of  intercourse  are  again  upon  you." 

Ships,  railroads,  the  telegraph,  the  radio,  the  aero- 
plane, and  motion  pictures  have  welded  all  nations  to- 
gether. Unfortunately,  diplomats  and  statemen  in  control 
of  most  governments  are  blind  to  the  fact  that  the  world 
is  now  a  one.     They  are  still  playing,  by  questionable 

[Twelvel 


rules,  the  game  of  diplomacy — the  petty  grafting  of  a 
piece  of  land  here,  and  of  a  concession  there — to  satisfy 
one  or  another  commercial  group  or  mercantile  syndi- 
cate. Strangely  enough,  some  of  these  groups,  even 
though  supposed  to  be  distinctively  American,  or  Eng- 
lish, or  French,  or  German,  have  American,  English, 
French,  and  German  capital  in  them  at  one  and  the  same 
time. 

"This  country,  with  its  institutions,  belongs 
to  the  people  who  inhabit  it.  Whenever  they 
shall  grow  weary  of  the  existing  government, 
they  can  exercise  their  constitutional  right  of 
amending  it,  or  their  revolutionary  right  to  dis- 
member or  overthrow  it. 

.  .  .  the  Federal  Government  shall  never 
interfere  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  the 
States  .  .  .  holding  such  a  provision  to  now  be 
implied  constitutional  law,  I  have  no  objection 
to  its  being  made  express  and  irrevocable. 

.  .  .  Why  should  there  not  be  a  patient 
confidence  in  the  ultimate  justice  of  the  people? 
Is  there  any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the  world? 
In  our  present  differences,  is  either  party  with- 
out faith  of  being  in  the  right?  If  the  Almighty 
Ruler  of  Nations,  with  his  eternal  truth  and 
justice,  be  on  your  side  of  the  North,  or  on  yours 
of  the  South,  that  truth  and  that  justice  will 
surely  prevail  by  the  judgment  of  this  great 
tribunal  of  the  American  people?" 

The  Emancipator  never  missed  an  opportunity  to 
express  his  faith  in  the  common  people.  Put  the  prob- 
lem of  peace  into  the  hands  of  the  people,  would,  un- 
doubtedly, be  his  words  were  he  alive  today. 

[Thirteen] 


".  .  .  My  countrymen,  one  and  all,  think 
calmly  and  well  upon  this  whole  subject.  Noth- 
ing valuable  can  be  lost  by  taking  time.  If  there 
be  an  object  to  hurry  any  of  you  in  hot  haste 
to  a  step  which  you  would  never  take  deliber- 
ately, that  object  will  be  frustrated  by  taking 
time ;  but  no  good  object  can  be  frustrated  by  it. 

...  I  am  loath  to  close.  We  are  not 
enemies  but  friends.  We  must  not  be  enemies. 
Though  passion  may  have  strained,  it  must  not 
break  our  bonds  of  affection.  The  mystic  chords 
of  memory,  stretching  from  every  battlefield  and 
patriot  grave  to  every  living  heart  and  hearth- 
stone all  over  this  broad  land,  will  yet  swell 
the  chorus  of  the  Union  when  again  touched,  as 
surely  they  will  be,  by  the  better  angels  of  our 
nature." 


[Fourteen] 


Fart  Two 


Conclusion  and  Plan 


PART  TWO 


No  stronger  argument  for  a  political  union  of  nations 
has  yet  been  made  than  the  one  that  Lincoln  gave  expres- 
sion to,  when  in  his  plea  for  sustaining  the  Union  in  the 
course  of  his  First  Inaugural  Address,  above  set  forth, 
he  said: 

"Physically  speaking,  we  cannot  separate. 
We  cannot  remove  our  respective  sections  from 
each  other,  nor  build  an  impassable  wall  be- 
tween them.  A  husband  and  wife  may  be 
divorced,  and  go  out  of  the  presence  and  beyond 
the  reach  of  each  other;  but  the  different  parts 
of  our  country  cannot  do  this.  They  cannot  but 
remain  face  to  face,  and  intercourse,  either 
amicable  or  hostile,  must  continue  between  them. 
Is  it  possible,  then,  to  make  that  intercourse 
more  advantageous  or  more  satisfactory  after 
separation  than  before?  Can  aliens  make 
treaties  easier  than  friends  can  make  laws? 
Can  treaties  be  more  faithfully  enforced  be- 
tween aliens  than  laws  can  among  friends?  Sup- 
pose you  go  to  war,  you  cannot  fight  always; 
and  when  after  much  loss  on  both  sides  and  no 
gain  on  either,  you  cease  fighting,  the  identical 
old  questions  as  to  terms  of  intercourse  are  again 
upon  you." 

Prophetic  words! 

Look  at  Germany!  Look  at  the  Allies!  "The  iden- 
tical old  questions  as  to  terms  of  intercourse  are  again 
upon  you."     Man's  scientific,  economic,   and   industrial 

[  Sixtee-n  ] 


relations  freely  stretch  across  national  boundaries.  Prog- 
ress now  forces  him  to  internationalize  his  political  and 
social  relations.  Physically  speaking,  we  cannot  separate. 
This  is  as  true  of  the  nations  today,  as  it  was  of  the  states 
when  uttered  by  Lincoln. 

The  college  professor,  who  a  short  time  ago  stated 
that  the  human  race  must  die  by  its  own  hand,  unless  it 
mix  the  development  of  individualism  with  associational- 
ism,  was  undoubtedly  right.  Salvation  lies  in  that  mixture. 
The  same  principle  must  be  worked  out  with  respect  to 
the  union  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  And  that  prin- 
ciple, as  a  problem,  was  worked  out  when  thirteen  gov- 
ernments, each  retaining  its  sovereignty,  formed  a  super- 
government,  through  the  adoption  of  a  constitution.  About 
that  time,  Thomas  Jefferson  wrote: 

"With  respect  to  everything  eternal,  we 
should  be  one  nation  only,  formally  hooked  to- 
gether. Internal  government  is  what  each  State 
should  keep  to  itself." 

In  1824,  he  wrote: 

"The  State  and  Federal  Governments  are 
co-ordinate  departments  of  one  single  integral 
whole.  To  the  State  governments  are  reserved 
all  legislation  and  administration  in  affairs 
which  concern  their  citizens  only;  and  to  the 
Federal  Government  is  given  whatever  concerns 
foreigners,  these  functions  alone  being  Federal. 
The  one  is  the  domestic,  and  the  other  the  for- 
eign branch  of  the  same  government;  neither 
having  control  over  the  other,  within  its  own 
department  .  .  .  The  capital  and  leading  ob- 
ject of  the  Constitution  was  to  leave  with  the 
States  all  authorities  which  respected  their  own 

[Seteiitcen] 


citizens  only,  and  to  transfer  to  the  United  States 
those  which  respected  citizens  of  foreign  States." 
{Note  Jefferson  s  use  of  the  word  ''foreigners''.) 

This  theory,  applied  to  the  world,  must  guarantee 
peace  everywhere,  as  well  as  the  independence  of  nations. 
It  is  the  one  sound  solution  of  the  present  international 
differences. 

In  the  Constitution  we  find  an  express  provision  by 
virtue  of  which  the  rights  of  the  states  to  complete  sov- 
ereignty within  their  bounds  is  confirmed  and  guaranteed. 
It  is  the  Tenth  Amendment: 

"The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Constitution  nor  prohibited  by  it 
to  the  States  are  reserved  to  the  States  respec- 
tively and  to  the  people." 

Our  courts  have  held,  time  and  again,  that  the  Fed- 
eral and  State  Governments  are  independent  of  each 
other,  each  having  distinct  and  separate  jurisdictions.  In 
one  of  its  decisions,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  said: 

"A  State  does  not  owe  its  origin  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  in  the  highest,  or 
in  any  of  its  branches.  It  was  in  existence 
before  it.  Every  State  in  the  Union,  in  every 
instance  where  its  sovereignty  has  not  been  dele- 
gated to  the  United  States,  I  consider  to  be  com- 
pletely sovereign,  as  the  United  States  are  in 
respect  to  the  powers  surrendered.  Each  State 
is  a  sovereign  as  to  all  powers  reserved." 

The  founders  of  our  government  intended  that  it 
should,  for  all  time,  be  a  true  federal  system,  a  federa- 
tion, a  union  of  free  and  independent  states;  each  pos- 

[E%ghteen'\ 


sessed  of  distinct  and  self-governing  powers  as  to  its  own 
people  and  its  own  affairs.  Webster  called  it:  ''An  inde- 
structible Union  of  indestructible  States."  The  states  of 
the  world  should  unite  on  the  same  basis.  Should  they 
so  unite,  they  would  surrender  no  "national  honor",  no 
national  sovereignty;  indeed,  they  would  surrender  noth- 
ing except  inevitable  ruin. 

My  plan,  therefore,  calls  for  an  international  con- 
stitution, patterned  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Such  a  constitution  should  create  and  main- 
tain an  international  government,  wherein  each  nation 
would  have  complete  sovereignty  within  its  own  bor- 
ders, no  less  than  it  has  today,  and  wherein  the  relation 
between  nation  and  nation  would  be  controlled  by, 
and  become  the  concern  of,  the  international  govern- 
ment only,  thereby  assuring  to  the  world  permanent 
peace. 

The  United  States  is  a  union  of  nations.  It  is, 
therefore,  fitting  that  this  Union,  through  its  President, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  its  Senate,  should 
call  upon  the  nations  of  the  world  to  come  together 
in  order  to  found  the  Greater  Union.  By  reason  of 
our  leadership,  a  call  from  us  for  an  international 
constitutional  convention,  for  the  purpose  of  framing 
an  international  constitution,  would  be  like  the  sound 
of  Gabriel's  horn — the  millenium  will  then  have  come 
for  suffering  millions. 

The  members  of  this  suggested  constitutional  con- 
vention should  consist  of  representatives  elected  in  the 
different  nations  of  the  world  by  the  people.  Each 
nation  should  have  one  representative  for  every  five 
million  people,  or  fraction  thereof.  For  approximately 
one  and  one-half  billion  people — the  population  of  the 

[Nineteen] 


civilized  world — a  gathering  of  about  three  hundred 
representatives  would  be  the  result.  This  body  could 
be  continued  as  the  lower  branch  of  an  international 
congress. 

In  the  proposed  constitutional  convention,  which 
should  be  based  upon  the  idea  that  each  country  is 
ready  to  surrender  its  international  sovereignty  to  the 
international  government,  an  article  similar  to  Article 
Ten  in  the  Covenant  of  the  League,  could  not  arise  to 
worry  and  discomfort  the  world.  However,  if  any  simi- 
lar proposition  should  present  itself,  then  each  nation 
having  five  or  more  delegates,  should  have  its  delega- 
tion taken  as  a  whole  when  voting;  and  if  a  majority 
of  such  delegation  should  not  be  in  favor  of  any  article, 
that  article  should  be  changed  until  it  does  meet  with 
the  approval  of  such  a  majority. 

The  corpus  of  a  government  created  by  the  inter- 
national constitution  should  consist  of  three  main  divi- 
sions: legislative,  executive,  and  administrative.  It 
should  employ  every  modern  political  device  to  keep 
the  rule  well  within  the  hands  of  the  people.  An  inter- 
national constitution  creating  a  legislative  body  which 
would  make  laws  having  the  authority  and  power  of 
all  nations  behind  them,  is  a  condition  devoutly  to  be 
wished  for. 

The  legislative  body  should  consist  of  two 
branches:  one  corresponding  to  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, and  the  other  to  that  of  the  Senate,  so  that  any 
fear  of  the  preponderance  of  any  one  nation  would  be 
overcome,  since  each  nation  would  be  entitled  to  the 
same  number  of  senators. 

The  constitution  should  establish  an  international 
court  of  appeals  at  The  Hague,  and  an  international 

[Twenty] 


lower  court  in  each  country  to  decide  international  ques- 
tions which  arise  locally,  following  the  system  of  the 
Federal  courts  in  this  country. 

The  international  government  should  establish  an 
international  reserve  system  modelled  on  the  idea  of 
our  Federal  Reserve  System,  so  that  the  credit  of  the 
stronger  nations  could  be  made  to  assist  that  of  the 
weaker,  thereby  saving  all  nations  from  eventual  finan- 
cial ruin,  and  giving  to  the  whole  world  economic  sta- 
bility. In  a  way,  this  suggestion  has  already  been  tried 
internationally  in  the  case  of  Austria. 

There  should  be  established  an  international  army 
or  police  force.  Each  nation  could  have  also  an  army 
corresponding  to  our  state  militia. 

To  those  who  may  think  this  plan  visionary,  may  I 
not  recall  the  telling  words  of  John  Quincy  Adams?  He 
said: 

"The  constitution  was  extorted  from  the 
grinding  necessity  of  a  reluctant  nation." 

History  records  the  keen  rivalries  and  the  bitter 
jealousies  which  existed  among  the  original  Thirteen  States 
before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  The  states  of  the 
world  are  now  relatively  in  the  same  position,  hence,  the 
solution  of  their  international  problems  should  be  on  lines 
similar  to  those  adopted  by  the  Colonies.  At  this  point 
an  observation  made  by  another  famous  American,  Chief 
Justice  Marshall,  is  especially  pertinent: 

"No  political  dreamer  was  ever  wild  enough 
to  think  of  breaking  down  the  lines  which  sep- 
arate the  States,  and  of  compounding  the  Ameri- 
can people  into  a  common  mass." 

When  Marshall  made  this  statement,  the  differences 

[Twenty-one] 


existing  between  the  various  states  must  have  appeared  as 
irreconcilable  as  the  differences  between  the  nations  ap- 
pear to  us  today.  Surely,  the  solution  adopted  by  the 
Colonies  offers  every  encouragement  to  those  who  hope 
for  a  world  union. 

The  American  people  should  not  be  slow  in  realizing 
that  the  salvation  of  the  world  can  come  only  through 
their  acceptance  of  the  best  and  highest  principles  of 
Americanism,  if  that  word  means  the  guarantee  of  life, 
of  liberty,  and  of  the  pursuit  of  happiness  for  all.  We 
have  repeatedly  professed  our  faith  in  the  people  of 
Germany,  in  the  people  of  Russia,  in  the  people  of  Mex- 
ico, in  the  people  everywhere.  The  deliverance  of  the 
civilized  world  from  the  curse  of  war  depends  upon  the 
common  peole.  Only  when  we  put  our  faith  in  them, 
will  the  world  be  made  "safe  for  democracy".  The  words 
of  Lincoln  on  this  point,  bear  repetition  with  all  the 
solemnity  which  man  can  muster: 

"Why  should  there  not  be  a  patient  confi- 
dence in  the  ultimate  justice  of  the  people?  Is 
there  any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the  world?" 

The  present  League  of  Nations  reminds  one  of  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  entered  into  by  the  Colonies 
just  before  the  birth  of  the  United  States.  It  was  a  series 
of  "covenants";  it  was  not  a  constitution.  Not  until  an 
international  constitution,  or  its  equivalent,  is  drawn  up, 
will  the  world  be  brought  to  the  threshhold  of  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  ideals  of  humankind.  The  human  mind  can 
but  ill  conceive  of  the  immense  strides  which  humanity 
will  make  thereafter.  It  may  take  many  years  for  such 
an  international  constitutional  government  to  function 
smoothly,  but  w^e  should  pledge  ourselves  to  its  ultimate 
success  with  the  same   oft-tried,   fervent  faith  which  we 

[T-juenty-two] 


have  maintained  for  one  hundred  and  thirty-six  years  in 
the  constitutional  principle  of  government. 

I  take  the  liberty  of  digressing  to  speak  to  the  bank- 
ers and  business  men  of  the  nations  of  the  world.  An 
international  government  is  bound  to  settle  the  develop- 
ment of  capitalism  along  peaceful  lines.  It  seems  that 
many  of  those,  who  in  the  days  of  1917  shouted  patriotism, 
frankly  and  honestly  admit  now  that  the  Great  War  was 
brought  on  because  of  the  desire  of  the  different  national 
capitalists  for  the  control  of  foreign  markets.  If  an  inter- 
national government  be  framed,  "foreign"  markets  will 
be  developed  by  capital,  and  not  by  the  capitalists  of  a 
nation  w^ho  hold  their  own  nation's  guarantee  with  which 
to  breed  wars.  Therefore,  conflicts  between  nations  for 
acquiring  commercial  advantages,  which  are  the  bases  of 
modern  wars,  will  cease,  and  with  such  an  event  must 
come  peace.  The  industrial  development  of  the  world, 
particularly  the  development  of  backward  peoples  and 
countries,  will  then  go  forward  as  rapidly  as  the  develop- 
ment of  the  territories  went  forward  after  the  Civil  War. 
Permanent  peace  will  yield  larger  dividends  than  war 
ever  did,  and  with  less  risk. 

Civilized  man  must  abandon  the  primitive  notion  that 
a  flag  or  insignia  of  national  unity  is  greater  than  the 
godly  principle  of  international  unity.  By  that  token  the 
flag  of  New  York  State  would  be  greater  than  that  of 
the  United  States.  The  United  States,  it  should  be  re- 
membered, is  only  a  part  of  the  world,  albeit  a  large 
part,  but  it  is  by  no  means  greater  than  the  rest  of  the 
world.  Prior  to  August,  1914,  the  rulers  of  Germany 
thought  that  she  was  more  than  a  part  of  the  w^orld,  and 
civilization  was  threatened  with  destruction.  Shall  human- 
kind be  in  ashes  because  of  man's  failure  to  recognize 
in  time  the  axiom  that  the  whole  is  greater  than  a  part? 

[Twenty-three] 


Blind  patriotism,  which  is  often  a  synonym  for  sav- 
agery, is  the  refuge  of  most  scoundrels.  Patriotism,  un- 
mixed with  tolerance,  makes  men  mad.  It  was  because 
our  forefathers  were  as  tolerant  as  they  were  patriotic 
that  they  were  able  to  unite  thirteen  governments.  In 
their  outlook,  the  peoples  of  today  must  be  tolerant.  They 
must  regard  each  other  in  the  way  that  citizens  of  different 
cities,  states,  or  sections  of  the  same  country  regard  each 
other,  that  is,  as  part  of  a  whole.  They  must  envisage 
the  world;  the  vision  of  their  mind's  eye  must  not  be 
distorted  by  prejudices  bred  of  nationalism.  They  must 
see  beyond  the  confines  of  their  respective  nations.  Lin- 
coln indicates,  and  the  facts  which  men  face  today  prove, 
that  there  is  an  unwritten  law  which  makes  all  peoples 
one  in  weal  and  one  in  woe. 

Civilized  human  beings,  know  that  they  are  brothers. 
Grouped  in  nations,  they  pray  and  hope  for  their  linking 
together. 

Shall  we  not  unite  them? 

Shall  we  not  be  a  greater  nation  and  a  greater  people 
if  we  do,  and  withal  shall  we  surrender  anything  but  our 
love  and  our  affection  to  fellow  beings?  Is  there  any 
greater  destiny  for  a  nation?  Is  there  any  higher  resolve 
for  a  people?  Is  there  any  better  or  equal  hope  in  the 
world? 


[Tzventy-four] 


